Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:29:21 -0400 From: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> To: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OPTIONS framework bug vs. SSL issues Message-ID: <20060.55201.970048.970478@jerusalem.litteratus.org> In-Reply-To: <4E5CC4FA.8000302@gmx.de> References: <4E5A48AC.6050201@eskk.nu> <CADLo838TqZjGH__KNTu3A0wVEnX%2B225HFhBmiEjqj=456y6iag@mail.gmail.com> <4E5A7DAE.8090904@FreeBSD.org> <20110828174640.GC277@magic.hamla.org> <4E5AA844.5030501@FreeBSD.org> <4E5B5E89.3000700@FreeBSD.org> <20110830102829.GN2084@pcfw2> <4E5CC4FA.8000302@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthias Andree writes: > > The user decided to go a specific path by initially choosing a > > specific set of OPTIONs. We *must* assume that the user had good > > reasons to do so. We should *not* assume the user has no idea what > > he's doing and needs to be guided. The latter would make make the > > update process just more complicated. > > The point is, most users just agree to the defaults, Which makes me one of "most users". I'll even confess to occasionally changing OPTIONS (during initial installation) more-or-less on a whim, usually but not always of the "of course this should have IPv6/threads/xml enabled" variety. (Which may remove me from "most". :-) > and in that > situation, there is reason to re-prompt. Agreed. An alternative - which might not be much less work - would be simple notification, e.g. "The default build options for port foo/bar have changed.". > One might argue that we don't need to reprompt if the new default > matches the old configuration, but the OPTIONS framework > currently doesn't know "user set this deliberately" or "user just > stuck to the defaults". Reprompting/notifying will be a pain. The alternative is users whose expected installation differs from reality. Robert Huff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060.55201.970048.970478>